NBC's Tim Russert, host of the popular Sunday morning show, Meet The Press, ran Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul through the political gauntlet quizzing the candidate on a number of issues, including abolishing public education. But would privatizing education be good for America?

Russert's idea, of course, was to paint Dr. Paul as someone who would deny children a proper "education," based on his views that are out-of-step with the education establishment. Those views, however, are becoming more and more popular among social conservatives who look upon the public education system in America as a threat to their children's moral upbringing.

In addition to the unsavory moral environment in many of our public schools, the failure of public education is obvious when one looks at where the United States ranks among the industrialized nations of the world in academic achievement. Our nation's middle and high school students are among the world's least educated in the areas of science, math, and geography. Their reading and writing skills are abysmal.

The "Education Establishment," which is embodied in the Department of Education and the super unions like the NEA, have essentially abolished good, sound education in America. Our children are no longer taught the "three Rs," but are indoctrinated in what I call the "three Gs" — think Green, act Globally, and look to big Government for all your answers.

The education of our nation's children should be left up to their parents to decide. But the sacred cow that is the "public education" system has taken the upper hand in America, due to Americans failing to read and understand the U.S. Constitution. Our Constitution gives no power to the federal government in the area of education. But sleepy-eyed Americans put the Constitution aside and instead listened to demagogues like president Dwight D. Eisenhower, who used the 1957 launch of the Soviet Sputnik satellite as a pretense to insert the federal government into education.

It would be difficult for anyone to answer every antagonistic interviewer's questions about some long-forgotten statement made 20 years ago, as was the case with Ron Paul during the recent interview. The good doctor from Texas is quick on his feet and isn't caught off guard very often, but how could he have provided a satisfactory answer that did not sound like he was against the education of children?

Here's one suggestion: I bet he would have hit a chord with the American people had he simply said that he is in favor of restoring good education in America, the kind that taught children how to read and write and learn and do math properly. He could have said "I'm not for abolishing education in America, but it is for certain that good education has been abolished in America by the Education Establishment."